Getty images contacted me they have seen 6 of my images they would like to use under licence. Great but what does this actually mean as this is the first time I've been approached by a stock agency....here are a few current problems I can see.

1 the images requested I was just about to submit for comp in UK, if the were successful they would end up in a book....will this fall outside the terms of the agreement?

2 iam just about to go live with my own website and my images are up for sale...is this ok?

3. I know I retain copyright, but do all rights/controls of the image come back to myself once the licence period is up.

As I say this is new territory for me and iam pleased the biggest stock agency in the world has noticed my work....but does it represent a wise move?

It would be good to hear from members who are licensing with Getty currently, but all input appreciated

Ask to review the contract. I've heard that Getty asks for the contract to be signed as is and will not accept any revisions. I don't know that for a fact as I have never done anything through them. The stock agency I'm with allows us to continue to market our own work as long as we've stipulated that before signing their contract.

Yes, by all means read the contract. All my stock companies are completely non-exclusive -- I wouldn't go exclusive with anyone. Most of the exclusive agencies mean that YOU, not your individual images, are exclusively with them.

I do believe you are selling off your rights to publish and sell those photos anywhere else. I have a dozen or so that I've licensed to them without thinking much about it. They've probably sold 3 of them for a grand total of $250 or so, net to me.

One of those photos would've been purchased just for publication by Popular Photography for $300 (none of the rights would've left me), if only I hadn't signed it off to Getty. Fortunately PP said they could go with another photo in my Flickr stream so I didn't lose out on that opportunity. But since then, I've been contacted by getty asking me for another 3 dozen photos or so, and I haven't responded to any of those requests. I just don't think Getty/stock is worth it.

Ask to review the contract. I've heard that Getty asks for the contract to be signed as is and will not accept any revisions. I don't know that for a fact as I have never done anything through them. The stock agency I'm with allows us to continue to market our own work as long as we've stipulated that before signing their contract.

Unless you are a trained contracts attorney or barrister YOU should not be the only person reading the contract.

What you should do is have an attorney read the contract and explain it to you. The language in contracts can have implications that you might not think of or see.

Hi Shaun , I have been with Getty for many years. You can use your images for self promotion (books and fine art) My earnings have dropped considerably in the last few years with the acquisition of millions of Royalty free images. The truth is if your images will be royalty free (not rights managed) which is probably the case the monetary return will be minimal if any. Go to the Getty site and search for comparable images to the ones you will be sending. This will give you some idea of the competition and the probability of a sale. I used to call stock , " the worlds biggest ongoing photo competition ", because clients have a daunting amount of images to chose from. It is even bigger now. There is a link to my pages on Getty at www.michaelorton.com .From there you can enter other search words to compare your own work. Best of luck to you . Michael

Ellis, the petapixel link is correct. With the emergence of sophisticated web search engines and users well versed in using them we'll soon see apps that will search for images linked directly to individual photographers, pros and amateurs alike. The current model of agencies compiling the images, taking the payment, then dribbling out a meager commission to contributors has a very short life remaining. I expect that at this moment several startups are working on replacing the Getti, IstockPhoto, etc., etc. models.

Thanks very much for all the info...iam going to take my time and read through all of this, have to say my gut feeling is ignore the request for now and see how the images do in the comp their in...it will be done and dusted by next jan...if I here from them after that I,ll weight it up again.

The current model of agencies compiling the images, taking the payment, then dribbling out a meager commission to contributors has a very short life remaining.

Perhaps but looking at it from a customer's perspective there will always be a place for them in the marketplace of images. I suspect that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who will "sell" images individually will have even less of a clue than Getty or Corbis as to their true worth to a client.

Unless you have a good reason, never sell your images as Royalty Free. One off is a standard, which means whoever purchases it can use it one time, as for editorial, and then that's it, or on ONE website.

This entire licenses thing is insane. I have some questions I'll post in a new thread.

I'm curious as to how someone gets the attention of Getty Images, other than having fantastic photography? I mean one might sit out in the world and cyber space with the best images the world has ever seen, and never have Getty see them.

I'm curious as to how someone gets the attention of Getty Images, other than having fantastic photography? I mean one might sit out in the world and cyber space with the best images the world has ever seen, and never have Getty see them.

o matter what flattering words they use to appeal to you to let them have the right to license and resell your photographs, Getty isn't primarily interested in "fantastic" photographs, unless they think can be licensed repeatedly.

Your photographs might be fantastic, iconic, amazing, beautiful, jaw dropping, awe inspiring examples of photography but that is secondary and incidental to their true worth to Getty and in some cases their intrinsic beauty may even make them worth less than blander photographs of the same subject matter.

I'm curious as to how someone gets the attention of Getty Images, other than having fantastic photography? I mean one might sit out in the world and cyber space with the best images the world has ever seen, and never have Getty see them.

We're talking about Flickr here, and I believe that Getty trolls around there a fair bit for content. The bar for acceptance is pretty low (they made the same offer to me, I passed on it). After talking to friends who have signed up with them the revenue you can expect is also quite low, really just a pittance.

Getty is throwing a wide net for content in a big fishing pond (Flickr), and is getting it cheap.